You have you provided no evidence to support your claim that Malkin indicated that “America is at war with all Muslims.” No, instead you deftly changed your attack on her to “Malkin is anti-Muslim.”

And the stories she posted were not anti-Muslim, they were anti-Islamist. If you don’t know the difference, then you need to brush up.

That’s not to say Malkin has never committed serious journalistic errors. She has, but apparently, you wouldn’t know a serious error if it invaded Poland.

That was just one story Malkin got something wrong with. We were treated to years of her getting something wrong, and then a few days later, somethng like this would appear in her spot:

“QUICK, be the first to congratulate me!

I’ve just joined the largest club in town: People whom Michelle Malkin has misquoted, misjudged and misrepresented.”

http://tinyurl.com/yhdttr

In 1992, Eagle Pacific’s reinsurer decided to stop selling reinsurance in Washington state.

for this:

In 1992, Eagle Pacific’s private reinsurer decided to stop selling reinsurance in Washington state.

Then, you tell me what impact that has on the story. Or was your only point that Malkin isn’t infallible, a point that didn’t need to be made in the first place?

Since you’ve proven yourself incompetent to answer Patterico’s question about defamation, I’ll answer it for you. Were she petty enough to sue you for the comment, here’s what to tell the judge: “I, Neville Chamberlain, if that’s my real name, am a complete idiot who has no clue what I’m talking about. I was also negligent in throwing out such goofy charges I couldn’t back up, but I didn’t actually know those idiotic charges were wrong, and was in fact too fucking stupid even to be aware enough about them to have acted with reckless disregard. God, I’m dumb. Good thing I picked a public figure to defame, huh?”

“This Column By Staff Writer Michelle Malkin Contained A Factual Error Regarding Eagle Pacific Insurance.”

Problemo?

Of course, everyone who has written anything has made mistakes, so that kind of wording could apply to anyone — which does, I guess, get Neville off the hook as far as defamation goes.

But it does mean his comment is almost entirely content-free.

The corrected error wasn’t a material one.

Wanna try again with the defamation?

Western Civ is not at war with Muslims (individuals who profess a belief in Islam) but ARE at war with Islamism… a radical ideology drawn from a fundamentalist reading of Arabian Islam (if immoral Neville did any amount of actual reading it would know that non-Arab moslems are regarded as ’second class’, not much better than the infidels that Islamists want to subjugate).

It is not opinion that Islamism has declared war on the West, it is fact. From here to here, add in Iran’s Amadawhackjob’s classic “call to Islam” letters and speeches, to Spain’s moslem community flexing some muscle, and the usual shennigans from the United State’s own terrorist-front organization CAIR and the facts on the ground are clear. Islamism is serious in their quest to establish a new Caliphate. They don’t care if it takes a couple of generations to do it, and they are pursuing a diverse strategy to achieve it, not unlike Muhammed’s original strategy of sword and deception to defeat infidels.

Moslems are religiously under no obligation to deal in good faith with any infidel.

So when such an immoral person such as Neville continues in the twin deceptions of 1) denying that there is anything wrong with Islamism and 2) labeling anyone who DOES sound alarm at such a anti-human ideology as “anti-all-Muslims… one is left with the only rational conclusion. Such a person wishes to advance the cause of Islamism.

The Muslims in Asia have been moderates until the recent development of Wahabbi missionary activities funded by Saudi oil money. We are not at war with all Muslims but we are with the radical minority that constitutes a big number of people, maybe ten million. Jane Hamster and company prefer to dismiss all this as a Republican plot to stay in power.

Now the Democrats are in power and they will have to deal with it. Are they a latter day version of the 1940 French politicians, who were weary of the work of governing and preferred to spend their days writing bad poetry ? Do they have the self confience and work ethic to defend our society from a serious threat ? We’ll see. Fortunately, the next two years are a preview of coming attractions. The MSM are no more serious about the war than is the new Speaker. The AP story is part of that weak response to existential threat. Is it more important to inform the public about a threat to our survival ? Or is it more important to score points against the hated George Bush ? This story isn’t over.

http://tinyurl.com/y67wu8

Note the correction her paper had to put at the top?